DA ELECTIONS

bail and district attorney candidates

In the past two years, the Massachusetts Bail Fund has posted 1003 bails at a cost of $424,080 throughout Massachusetts. We have a bail crisis in our state. District Attorneys have the power to effectively end cash bail right now by instructing the prosecutors who work for them to recommend that everyone be released on personal recognizance.

There are contested District Attorney races happening right now in Berkshire, Hampden, Middlesex, Plymouth, & Suffolk Counties. Primary elections are on September 4 and the general election is on November 6.

District Attorneys supervise the prosecutors who make life-changing decisions about our neighbors every day. These decisions include:

Whether or not to charge a person

What charges to prosecute

Bail recommendations

Whether to move to revoke bail

The Massachusetts Bail Fund has collected critical data about our neighbors who have been held on bail they cannot afford. We wanted to share this information so that constituents can evaluate campaign claims about bail and candidates' plans to address the crisis of pre-trial detention in Massachusetts. We invite you to contact candidates and incumbents in your county with your questions and concerns about cash bail.

We believe residents in every county are entitled to clear, consistent policies related to cash bail and publicly available data to monitor how those polices are being implemented.

The Massachusetts Bail Fund is dedicated to ending cash bail in MA. We plan to hold whoever is elected responsible for ensuring our neighbors are treated with dignity and equity regardless of their ability to pay bail.

NOTE: Many of the DA candidates reference the Brangan v. Commonwealth case. In August of 2017 a supposed landmark decision heralded as bringing much needed change to the bail system in MA was decided. The Brangan v. Commonwealth case was later codified into law in the CJ Reform bill passed this year. We’ve split the data on bail posting into BEFORE BRANGAN & AFTER BRANGAN to show if there’s any difference in the work we’ve been asked to do by communities in MA.

If a defendant poses a threat to public safety, a dangerousness hearing is the proper remedy. I will require my ADAs to seek a supervisor’s approval when seeking a dangerousness determination.

I am committed to upholding the Constitutional imperative that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Cash bail has been abused for far too long and has been used as a tool to keep non-dangerous people incarcerated pretrial. The three policies I would implement to ensure defendants are not forced to plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit are:

No cash bail unless absolutely no other alternative will suffice.

Priority given to cases where the defendant is being held. If a defendant is being held he should be tried promptly and coerced into pleading guilty.

The decision to hold a dangerousness hearing must be approved by a supervisor.

Judith Knight (D)

I will commit to ensuring that my prosecutors will not misuse the dangerousness statute to seek bail or incarceration where it is not warranted by the facts.

I would not ask for bail on misdemeanor cases. I would make sure my prosecutors respected the Speedy Trial law. I would empower my prosecutors to reduce the charges if they felt that the facts and circumstances warranted it.

Hampden County

Candidate

Response

Anthony Gulluni (D) ​Incumbent

NO RESPONSE​

Mary McNally (Unenrolled)

NO RESPONSE​

Middlesex County

​Note for Middlesex County: In January of 2018, incumbent DA Marian Ryan issued a statement claiming that her office had instituted a new policy of declining to ask for bail in cases of “low level, nonviolent, offenders”. While we take issue with each of those categories as they are undefined, unaccountable, and not tracked, and therefore meaningless, we’ve also split out Middlesex data by month from January 2017-Present. The numbers clearly show that we have been asked to help in more, not fewer cases since the announcement.

Candidate

Response

Donna Patalano (D

[Misuse of 58a hearings] is a problem particularly endemic at the Middlesex DA’s Office after the 2013 murder of Jennifer Martel by Jared Remy. Remy had been released on bail and not held as dangerous. A tragedy occurred. Since then, pretrial incarceration has gone up 110% in Middlesex despite a drop in arrest rates and in prosecutions. We must ensure the integrity and appropriate use of dangerousness hearings, and work to provide the services and support that victims and witnesses deserve. Those who do not pose a danger to the public should not be held pretrial for an inability to pay, or as a result of a judgment made outside the appropriate process.

There are two changes we can make immediately.

First, no bail requests for low-level nonviolent offenses. My office will have a well-defined list of offenses this policy covers, and will release data every six months on requests and outcomes.

Second, we will train prosecutors to educate judges about the cost of incarcerating a person who cannot afford bail so that the true costs of the incarceration are part of the consideration around bail. A longer term program will be to implement a text message reminder system for those with hearing dates like the one used for jury duty. This will require collaboration with the Trial Court, but has the potential for incredible savings - both for folks who avoid pretrial detention and thus are able to appear for their jobs, pay their rent, and make their other obligations, and for the criminal justice system.

Marian T. Ryan (D)​Incumbent

As the Supreme Judicial Court held in Brangan v. Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 691, 706 (2017), a defendant’s alleged dangerousness should not be considered in setting bail. To the extent that the Commonwealth believes that the defendant should be held without bail before trial because he poses a danger to the community, the Commonwealth “is required to proceed under G.L.c. 276, § 58A, and comply with that statute's procedural requirements.” Our Office is committed to complying with the court’s holding.

In January 2018, our Office implemented a new policy of no longer seek bail for defendants in low level cases even where such a defendant has a long history of default. Although there was a logic to seeking cash bail when defendants had failed to appear for court appearances in the past, the poor are by definition less likely to be able to afford cash bail. One result was that members of these communities would be more likely to be held pending trial or they would plead guilty only to avoid being held further. This policy is intended to address that concern.

Plymouth County

Candidate

Response

Timothy J. Cruz (R)​Incumbent

NO RESPONSE

John Bradley, Jr. (I)

All 58A hearing requests will need supervisory approval. Also, I will compile a non- exhaustive list of felonies for which a prosecutor may, but need not, move for a dangerous hearing.

I hope to spearhead a movement detailed on my website to eliminate cash bail in Massachusetts. However, under the current system I would move to detain dangerous individuals and would only request cash bail on those who have committed serious felonies and represent a major risk of flight.​

Suffolk County

​Note: The incumbent DA, Dan Conley, is not running for re-election.

Candidate

Response

Evandro Carvalho (D)

Policy changes:

No cash bail for non-violent misdemeanors and possession cases

Focus instituting diversion and restorative justice even before arraignment

I will evaluate the possibility of eliminating cash bail completely.

Linda Champion (D)

ADA must at the time of arraignment must request bail to ensure a defendant’s return to court. Dangerousness should only be sought if the defendant poses a risk of using physical force against the person of another and is necessary to keep a victim safe.

Policy changes:

Bail should only be used to ensure a defendant’s return to answer to the charges;

For non-violent offenses, pleas should be given at least 10 days prior to each and every court appearance for consideration by the defendant with enough time to allow defense counsel to present the Commonwealth’s proposed disposition.

For cases proceeding to trial, once the plea is tendered should the Defendant seek a trial and be found guilty the plea offered prior to trial shall remain at the time of sentencing.

Greg Henning (D)

My prosecutors will be instructed to get approval from a supervisor before moving for a 58A dangerousness hearing. The pre-trial detention of an individual for a period of 90 days is a serious matter that requires supervision and great attention.

As prosecutors we should absolutely not be asking for a cash bail if we do not think, at the end of the day, that the case is deserving of a jail sentence. If elected, I would implement that guiding rule for adoption by all of our prosecutors. I would encourage defense attorneys to work cooperatively with our prosecutors on bail reviews if there are questions about culpability. And I would strongly encourage counsel to approach our office with claims of actual innocence to be reviewed by supervisors in the office.

Shannon McAuliffe (D)

ADA’s have been using bail as a way to address dangerousness when in fact ability to pay has no relation to controlling for dangerousness. Similarly, here, the inclination may be to overuse a dangerousness hearing now that ADA’s cannot use bail to hold people who do not fit the hearing requirements. I will ensure the requirements are met before anyone moves for a 58A hearing.

My 3 top policies are as follows:

No cash bail for misdemeanors;

No cash bail for other non violent felonies

No cash bail for any offense in which the prosecutor will not likely ask for jail time at the time of disposition. Recently an ADA asked for $5,000 bail when a young man fled from police on a stolen motorbike. He was held for 3 weeks during which time he lost his job. I asked the ADA’s Supervisor if they were ultimately going to ask for jail time and when he said “no,” I asked why he requested $5,000 bail, and he answered “public safety.” When I tried to explain we are safer when the young man (formerly gang involved) is working, he said, “And I would ask for $5,000 cash bail again.” This defies reason and such practices will end.

Rachael Rollins (D)

To assure that the Dangerousness Hearing will not be misused, I will require ADAs to receive signoff from a superior when they are seeking a Dangerousness Hearing. This data will be captured and the reason for the hearing will be in writing and will require supervisory sign-off. If we implement policies and procedures whereby on certain offense will require a Dangerousness Hearing, those will supersede this written answer.

Priority #1. Cash bail should not be requested for any offenses that are at the state sentencing guideline 3 or below. This way, we are borrowing from the sentencing guidelines which were designed by a highly qualified mix of practitioners and judges from across the state. This is consistent with my running theme of having a body of practitioners from across criminal law advising me on particular issues.

Priority #2. In the circumstances where cash bail is appropriate for a low level offense because of the specific circumstances of the case, cash bail can still be sought but through a process that allows for input from experienced ADAs. Line ADAs will be required to obtain supervisory permission to request a cash bail for any offense that is at sentencing guideline 3 or below. This will come closer to ensuring that pre-sentencing incarceration is only sought where the ADAs would actually intend to ask for jail time at sentencing.

Priority #3. Mandatory training for all of my ADAs and staff of the collateral consequences of poverty, the racial disparities in the system, and an actual day spent inside of the HOCs, DOCs and other facilities that people are sent to when we make our decision."

Michael Maloney (I)

I’ve seen 58a’s used countless times as a mechanism to hold someone while the prosecution builds their case. 58a’s will only be used when an individual is a danger and there are no less restrictive means to ensure the safety and well-being of the public.

Policy changes:

Not implementing bail on non-violent possession cases.

Incorporate restorative justice options to defendants with no history of violence.

Ensure 58a’s are not employed as a mechanism to bypass Brangan and are only used when absolutely necessary and are the less restrictive means available.

Worcester County

Candidate

Response

Joe Early (D)​Incumbent

I am committed to ensuring our ADA’s behavior is consistent with both the bail process as well as 58A dangerousness hearings.

Our office does not impose cash bail amounts intended to force people to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. Following the Commonwealth vs. Brangan decision, which was codified in An Act Relative to Criminal Justice Reform, our office understands that cash bail amounts should only be set to ensure the defendant will return to court.​

Blake Rubin (Unenrolled)

Dangerousness hearings which result in a minimum of at least 3 days of detention for a person, presumed innocent, are a significant deprivation of liberty. I would abolish the current “policy” I have experienced in Worcester County of the DAO seeking such a hearing for every gun case and numerous other matters.

My policy would be – BEFORE an ADA files a motion for such hearing, it must be reviewed by a supervisor, and possibly myself. I would also employ education and training of the ADA’s to limit this request to only those cases where there is an imminent danger to the public AND the ADA believes there are no less restrictive conditions that will ensure the public’s safety.

I would only request bail on selective cases where there is a real likelihood of incarceration and I would focus the majority if not all bail requests on felonies. For the majority of cases which come into the district court (which do not fit into either category) I would use pre-trial conditions if personal recognizance wasn’t a reasonable option.